9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (7) TMI 735 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Entitlement to Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under different notifications. Analysis: The main issue in the present appeal was whether the respondents were entitled to take Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs in accordance with Notification No. 24/94-C.E. or if they should have taken Modvat credit on a deemed basis as per Notification No. 29/96-C.E. The Tribunal had previously considered this issue in Order No. A-1520/Cal/2000, where it was held that Rule 57A(1) allowed Modvat credit of duties paid on the inputs in question. The Tribunal found that the appellants fulfilled all conditions to avail the benefit of Modvat credit of duty actually paid on the inputs under Rule 57A(1) read with Notification 24/94-C.E. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessees had the right to avail Modvat credit on an actual basis when all conditions of the rule were met, and they could not be compelled to avail the deemed Modvat credit under a different notification. The Tribunal further explained that the Board's Circular did not debar assessees from taking Modvat credit on an actual basis, and it was the option of the assessee to choose the more beneficial provision unless compelled by law to do otherwise. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of a debarring clause affecting the appellants' right to avail credit under Rule 57A(1) supported their decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief to the appellants. Subsequently, in Order No. A-1241/Kolkata/2001, dated 19-11-2001, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the same respondents, as the issue had already been decided in favor of the respondents. In the current appeal, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its previous decision, especially since the Revenue did not challenge the earlier decision or provide any new arguments. The Revenue merely sought a reconsideration of the issue without presenting any compelling grounds. As the Tribunal had already taken a view and it remained unchallenged by the Revenue, the appeal was deemed to lack merit, and it was consequently rejected.
|
